Re: Basic Properties of Lists

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <dcKQ7.23845$Yy.297532@rwcrnsc53>, Mark Lundquist says...
>Look, you guys both know what a doubly-linked list is; you don't need some
>double-dome to weigh in with a ruling on it!

:-)

>But Ted, what's the big whoopie deal about this, anyway?  Who cares if the
>names have a "directional bias", as long as the semantics are clear?  The
>important thing is the relationship between the names you choose for the
>extremities and the names you choose for "direction", right?  So if the

I'm just explaining *why* I feel the way I do about the naming, that's all. You
are absolutely right that its not that big a deal.

>ends you call "First" and "Last".  I don't buy the argument that a
>preferential naming scheme entails a loss of flexibility or that it obscures
>the property of bidirectionality.

I'd agree with the first, but not the second. You might not buy the argument
that it obscures the issue fatally (I don't think I would either), but I don't
see how you can claim that it doesn't obscure it at all. 

How about we use "Head" and "Tail" for terminology? In the final analysis I
don't think they are any more biased than "Front" and "Back". Plus those terms
are traditionally associated with lists, so they might be more acceptable to
Jeff. As an added bonus, I don't think anyone is liable to complain that it
ought to be "Tailward" and "Headward" instead. :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.